REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation v. City of Los Angeles California, a municipal corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
INC., a California corporation,,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA,
a municipal corporation; COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES;
CHRISTOPHER “KIP” RUDD, an
individual sued herein in his official and
personal capacities; OSCAR JAUREGUI,
an individual sued herein in his official
and personal capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55650
D.C. No. 2:99-cv-10456-GHK-CT
MEMORANDUM *
REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
INC., a California corporation,,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA,
No. 08-55721
D.C. No. 2:99-cv-10456-GHK-CT
FILED
MAR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
a municipal corporation; CHRISTOPHER
“KIP” RUDD, an individual sued herein in
his official and personal capacities;
OSCAR JAUREGUI, an individual sued
herein in his official and personal
capacities,
Defendants,
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellant.
REGENCY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
INC., a California corporation,,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA,
a municipal corporation; COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56414
D.C. No. 2:99-cv-10456-GHK-CT
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD, IKUTA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (the “CRA”) on
the issue of lost profits because neither the CRA’s motion for summary judgment
on Regency’s inverse condemnation claims, nor the district court’s request for
supplemental briefing on standing, gave Regency reasonable notice that the
sufficiency of its claim for lost profits would be at issue. See Oluwa v. Gomez, 133
F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998).
The district court’s ruling that the Hollywood and Hoover redevelopment
plans were unconstitutional because they vested unbridled discretion in the CRA
did not entitle Regency to receive permits for its proposed billboards. See Desert
Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of Oakland, 506 F.3d 798, 808 (9th Cir. 2007).
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Regency’s
motion for such injunctive relief. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in
denying Regency’s motion to withdraw or amend its admission under Rule 36,
because the district court’s determination that the CRA would be prejudiced due to
the significant passage of time was not “illogical, implausible, or without support

-- 3 of 5 --

4
in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record.” United States v.
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see Hadley v. United
States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not err when it granted summary judgment for
Regency on its as-applied First Amendment challenge to the sign permit process
for the Hollywood and Hoover areas. The CRA had no design specifications to
guide its review of Regency’s Hollywood billboard proposal. See Desert Outdoor
Adver., Inc. v. City of Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d 814, 818–19 (9th Cir. 1996). The
CRA’s discretion in reviewing Regency’s Hoover billboard proposal was not
limited by the then applicable design specifications, and, therefore, its exercise of
discretion also was not sufficiently cabined. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer
Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 772 (1988). Regency failed to raise a facial First
Amendment challenge to the billboard permit process for the Mid-City, Pico-
Union 1, Watts Corridor, and Wilshire Center/Koreatown redevelopment areas
because “[t]he summary mention of an issue in a footnote, without reasoning in
support of the appellant’s argument, is insufficient to raise the issue on appeal.”
Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 778 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because we vacate the district court’s ruling on Regency’s entitlement to
lost profits, we also vacate the district court’s calculation of attorneys’ fees and

-- 4 of 5 --

5
costs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Each
party will bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, AND REMANDED.

-- 5 of 5 --